| Study characteristics |
| Methods |
Study design: RCT
Setting: Finland, occupational
Exercise groups: 2
Comparison groups: 0 |
| Participants |
Number of participants: 125 (E1 = 64, E2 = 61)
Chronic LBP duration: 15 months (moderate)
Neurological/radicular symptoms: Some participants
Mean age (years): 46
Sex (female): 100% |
| Interventions |
Exercise Group 1 (E1): General exercises including stationary bikes, low impact aerobics, walking; muscle strengthening exercises using equipment, spinal stabilising exercises, functional exercises for posture and control, home exercises; type = mixed; duration = 8 weeks; dose = low; design = partially individualised; delivery = group; additional intervention = psychological therapy & back school
Exercise Group 2 (E2): Light exercise, stretching, spine mobilisation, core stability, home exercises; type = mixed; duration = 8 weeks; dose = low; design = individualised; delivery = individual; additional intervention = electrotherapy & manual therapy |
| Outcomes |
Core outcomes reported: Pain (Low Back Pain Rating Scale (Manniche)); function (Oswestry Disability Index); work (subjective working capacity (rated on a scale of 0‐10, sick leave due to back pain (classified scale: 0 days, 1‐30 days, over 30 days during past 12 months)); Global Perceived Health or Recovery (Global Perceived Health or Recovery (general well‐being after treatment))
Follow‐up time periods available for syntheses: 8 weeks (short); 26 weeks (moderate); 52 weeks (long) |
| Notes |
Conflicts of interest: None to declare
Funding source: Foundation funds (source not indicated)
Other: None |
| Risk of bias |
| Bias |
Authors' judgement |
Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) |
Low risk |
The randomisation list was generated by an independent biostatistician using a table of random numbers, and results were kept in sealed envelope. |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) |
Low risk |
The physiotherapist randomised each patient into one of the two groups by opening an opaque sealed envelope. |
| Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes |
High risk |
Assumed not possible |
| Blinding of care provider (performance bias) |
High risk |
Assumed not possible |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes |
High risk |
Not described |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes |
Low risk |
In total, 96% (six months follow‐up), 89% (12 months follow‐up), and 79% (24 months follow‐up) of the included patients provided follow‐up information. |
| Participants analysed in group allocated (attrition bias) |
Low risk |
All patients were included in the analysis on the basis of their intervention allocation. |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) |
Low risk |
Support for judgement was not available. |
| Groups similar at baseline (selection bias) |
Low risk |
At baseline, patients were comparable in each treatment arm (Table 2). |
| Co‐interventions avoided or similar (performance bias) |
Unclear risk |
Significant use of passive interventions (30‐40 minutes out of 60 minutes) in individual physiotherapy arm and multidisciplinary management in multidisciplinary rehabilitation arm. |
| Compliance acceptable in all groups (performance bias) |
Unclear risk |
Not described |
| Timing of outcome assessment similar in all groups (detection bias) |
Low risk |
Support for judgement was not available. |
